Okay, okay…I know that I’m a little off-topic by asking this, but maybe you good folks here can finally put this question to rest for me. Why is it that in every gay relationship, weather it’s between two men or two women, one of the pair always acts masculine and the other of the pair always acts feminine? If this relationship between two men or two women is so natural like the libs say, why does this always happen?

It isn't true. You are exhibiting what is called "confirmation bias" just because you see that happening does not actually mean that what you are seeing is the norm. True, some gay relationships exhibit that behavior, but not always and not in every case. it is generally attributed to one of 2 things. 1) acting in what is seen as "gay" to fit into the culture because of in-group/out-group stigma 2)they are acting out how they have seen relationships work. essentially, that's how they were taught a relationship works.

July 1, 2015 at 2:36am

terriveganmom responded:

It is not like that in every gay/lesbian relationship.

[-2] June 16, 2015 at 2:50pm

The Blaze is engaged in revisionist article writing when it says “According to the WSJ, Ray Liotta, a main character on the show, did not even exist in real life.”
Wait! Ray Liotta doesn’t exist in real life, but he was a main character in the show? I’m confused. Shouldn’t that line read “According to the Wall Street Journal, Ray Liotta played a character that did not even exist in real life.”?

I think what you’ll soon find out as a followup story is that Mr. Horn was waiting for a ride from his buddy that drives the same make and color of vehicle, and that’s why he immediately jumped in the car. And when he said “Do you know what this is?” he was going to say that it was a case of mistaken identity. Really. This really happened to me once, where I was waiting for my wife to pick me up and when I left the business I was visiting, saw what I thought was my wife’s car in the parking lot, right where she said she’d be. I opened the unlocked passenger side door and started to get in, only to see that the driver was not my wife. It was the same make, model and color car as my wife’s, and fortunately the driver laughed about my predicament.

The owner of the drone is probably a liberal troll who is attempting to be involved in behavior that, although barely legal, will be egregious enough so that people at the FAA will want to make the drone law more strict.

“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
“I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”
“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case. Because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. And I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.”
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…period.”
“The government will no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by President Bill Clinton), since it violates Constitutional principles.”
“You’re right, John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith…”
“When you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”
“We gotta have a civilian national security force…”
““We must address the grievances that terrorists exploit,” by finding programs in “entrepreneurship and science and technology. ”
I got more examples…

“Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-27) Sounds pretty clear, no matter which culture you’re referring to.

So, it appears that under the net neutrality rules that are proposed by the FCC, only the big corporations that offer internet—like Comcast—will be able to pay fines and fees levied against them. Hence, those big companies that supported Dems in the past will rule the internet. Just like they did during the bank solvency era.

Exactly. In addition, a large percentage of new internet tax revenue will go into a big Government slush fund, partly to fund more expansion of power and also to reward supporters of big government and Democrats. Q:Where did the money come from to buy “Obamaphones”? A:A tax on consumers for their communication usage.

February 14, 2015 at 12:38pm

gert7to3 responded:

changedone,
Your logic is so convoluted. Here is a little chart which shows to whom and how much Comcast bribed, oops "contributed", to politicians in 2014. A lot more went to Republicons than Democrats. Don't you understand that big business will dominate your life even more than big government?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461

[5] February 12, 2015 at 8:01am

This started with Comcast. Back in 2009, the tech editor for PC Magazine revealed he was being throttled back on his “unlimited bandwidth use” contract by Comcast, who could not tell him what his bandwidth limit was. Many readers e-mailed him about how they, too were being targeted by Comcast. In 2010, the same tech editor wrote how he was getting e-mails from people that were saying they couldn’t not share files through legal file sharing methods like YouSendIt. Again, by Comcast, They were being sent fake messages during the file transfers that appeared to be from the other user, saying they had to break the internet connection. So, two violations of federal law by Comcast. So a panel was set up by the FCC in NYC to air the grievances of the public. 1000 seats open to the public—first come, first serve. A staff photog of the AP saw many street people taking up a lot of the seats. He asked one of them how they got there. The guy told them a white Comcast van came and picked them all up and gave them 10 bucks apiece to sit in the seats. It appeared at the time that Comcast wanted to limit the access of the public to the FCC panel. I knew this would lead to legislation over the internet. So, after all this, Comcast was still allowed to buy NBC/Universal.

So, it appears that under the net neutrality rules that are proposed by the FCC, only the big corporations that offer internet---like Comcast---will be able to pay fines and fees levied against them. Hence, those big companies that supported Dems in the past will rule the internet. Just like they did during the bank solvency era.

February 14, 2015 at 5:23pm

empiresentry responded:

David Cohen "oversees lobbying at the Comcast Corporation" and "hosted the president and some 120 guests" at his home in Philadelphia, the Times reported. Guests "paid at least $10,000 each to attend; Mr. Obama called Mr. Cohen and his wife ‘great friends.’"

[2] January 28, 2015 at 2:41pm

“I will stand with the muslims, should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”: Barack Hussein Obama. Don’t have to look further.

I saw a documentary from Australian television about this a couple of years ago. The reason they build these cities is to keep their building infrastructure active. This keeps China’s Gross Domestic Product high and allows them to deflate their own currency. This building also allows them to skirt climate change laws. That’s the only reason they’re doing this.